Egoism Flashcards
EE leads to moral evil - intro
- The statement that ethical egoism inevitably leads to moral evil is viewed by most to be correct as it can be argued that egoism leads to the destruction of the justice system because moral agents focus upon their self interests “which prohibits meaningful social cooperation from occurring” as stated by MrKich
- misinterpretations of EE are damaging to society as a whole
- this essay will take the position that EE does inevitably leads to immorality
P1 - it does lead to moral evil (society needs objective laws)
- firstly, one may argue that ethical egoism leads to the collapse of the state and dust lead to moral evil as we need objective laws to uphold justice
- Any system is illegitimate, for Max stern ego as in as it creates conflict between the obligation to abide by the law and the individuals uniqueness (stated by einzig)
- many argue that if we did not have a justice system and laws then the foundation of society crumble
- People would just justify lawful actions if they fulfil their long-term self interest
- For example the rich go out of their way avoid paying taxes already
- if they were given license to do this then the inequality gap in society would be widened
- If there was no moral justice system to guide us, civilians would be left to their own devices which could lead to catastrophic events
- therefore ethical egoism does lead to moral evil because moral agents will instead concentrate upon their own self interests and this ignore community needs which rely on altruism
P2 - does not lead to moral evil
In opposition to this, the ethical egoist would argue that people only ever act out of self-interest anyway
- So egoism wouldn’t lead any more more evil than they’re already is
- this is summarised by Hobbes he declares that “ no man gives, but with intention of good to him himself”
- Humans already act mainly out of self interest due to basics survival instinct and also to our selfishness which is derived from that
- furthermore, this is supported by Darwin’s theory of evolution as “ the survival of the fittest” is purely based on self preservation
- by following egoism there would be no major changes in the way we act and therefore no additional moral evil
- for example in the instance of a fire would be instinct to try and escape yourself first before anyone else
- Therefore, one can argue that the way we act without following ethical egoism is very close to acts of an actual egoist
- The amount of more evil in the world would not increase
P3 - it does lead to moral evil
- furthermore, close illustrates ethical egoism as a “ radically defective ethical theory, possibly conceptually incoherent” as social injustices can occur when people prioritise their own interests
- The pursuit of a persons own self interest and greed can lead others been negatively affected by a moral agents selfishness
- States that “if we define ethical egoism as promoting my interest over any everyone else, then you and everyone else are very unlikely to become ethical egoist”
- this is a convincing argument because we have lots of evidence that are already shows how saving self interests lead to the suffering of those without power
- for example when dictator ships go and checked, corruption is rife and massacre occur e.g. Holocaust/Rwandan genocide
-moreover, due to the subjective nature ethical egoism, the theory can certainly endorse forms of bigotry - for example, Stirner says “for me you are nothing but my food”
- ethical egoism can be seen as a form of bigotry as it divides people
- Which leads to discrimination and segregation
- Stirner encapsulates man’s bigotry stating “ now am I, who is competent for much, per chance to no advantage over less competent”
- this therefore suggests that ethical egoism does lead tomorrow evil as it’s a gateway to larger problem such as corruption and bigotry.
P4- due to relativist nature of EE it leads to moral evil
-in addition, Stirner states “ I decide whether it is the right thing in me, there is no right outside of me”
- This mentality suggest that in any case the moral agent is always right, which poses the issue that if every person is right, but has contrasting views, then how does one determine his view is more important within society without society injustices occurring such as wealth disparity
-ethical egoism is the ultimate form of moral relativism
- There are no objective moral principles, which renders or ethical debate meaningless
- It becomes a battle of the wills (lying, blackmail and manipulation would increase because all bets are off)
-Good behaviour becomes entirely contingent on what we get out of it
- Helping others no longer saves our interests, then it no longer has any appeal
- Perhaps egoism will inevitably lead to moral evil because we live in an unjust world
- if we did not live in an unjust world, then it might not
P5 - it does from a theistic point of view
- most theists would argue that ethical egoism inevitably leaves evil as most religions tend to be self sacrificial and teach that we should put others first
- Whilst Stirner regards religion as a”spook”, 84% of the worlds population holds a religious belief, thus most would argue that ethical egoism goes against their faith
- for example, Christianity teaches the notions of agape love; that ‘love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilment of the law’ which can be found in Romans 13:10
- on the other hand, Buddhism holds the notion of the three lakshanas which illustrates the idea that ‘there is no self or soul’ and that the ultimate aim of enlightenment is achieved from detaching from the illusion of self
- therefore ethical ego was would be seen as contradictory to many religious ethical belief systems and would therefore lead to a sense of immorality
